A strong Protestant rebuttal to purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Think
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Purgatory is not so much a place as a state of being. We do not know if it’s something that takes an instant or ages. We do know that nothing impure will enter Heaven (stated in the Bible many times) and many of us will die impure, having sinned, but having true saving faith in Christ – those of us who have sinned since our last confession (or if you’re Protestant, the last time you prayed for forgiveness) will have to be “cleansed” to get into Heaven –

This is a “purging” of the sins left on our souls “purge” “Purgatory” same root word, same meaning – it’s the falling off of your sins as you travel from here to there – if a Protestant wants to believe it’s in a blink of an eye that’s fine – if they want to call it something else (cleansing, forgiveness, etc.) that’s fine – but the concept is in Protestant belief too – just not the name.
 
40.png
Think:
and to Keating’s defense of it imparticular…of course a lot of you will disagree but interesting nonetheless.

biblicist.org/bible/purge.shtml
Click to expand...
It isn’t very strong at all, because it doesn’t address the issues. It charges off on the usual false trail of claiming that urgatory contradicts the idea that Jesus atoned for all sin. Purgatory is only for sins that have been forgiven. So the entire argument presented is irrelevant.

The question you have to answer is this: given that most of us still are not entirely sanctified when we die, how do we get rid of the remaning sinful desires that are in us at death? We aren’t talking about justification. We aren’t talking about forgiveness. We agree that this is on the basis of grace received through faith that works in love. Unless you are willing to address the issue of how we get from a state of moral imperfection to a state of perfect holiness, you have nothing to say about Purgatory at all.

And as for your quote–I don’t know who said it, but it’s bunk. The Renaissance was full of mysticism. Has the Mystery Author ever heard of Marsilio Ficino? Nicholas of Cusa? Furthermore, the Renaissance wasn’t particularly strong on reason. Renaissance folks were more into rhetoric and beauty and style than reason. The scholastic philosophers of the 13-14th centuries were far more careful thinkers than the humanists of the 15th. (Granted, scholasticism and humanism overlapped considerably, and weren’t incompatible.)

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
It isn’t very strong at all, because it doesn’t address the issues. It charges off on the usual false trail of claiming that urgatory contradicts the idea that Jesus atoned for all sin. Purgatory is only for sins that have been forgiven. So the entire argument presented is irrelevant… . . .Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin, I agree completely. This is a wan excuse of an argument. You remind me of myself before I became Catholic, often defending Catholic teaching to both Protestants AND to Catholics. I though my credibility higher with Catholics BECAUSE I was on the other side of the Tiber, yet arguing the Catholic case.
 
No offense, but I see nothing in this article to shake my faith in purgatory. :yawn: Furthermore, the Protestants that have come to this site generally have more challenging arguments then this person’s. 🙂 (Hey, I gotta give you guys credit)

One thing that strikes me though, is the number of people who seem disturbed enough by Karl Keating to feel the need to respond to him. hmmm… he must be doing something right.👍
 
Really? It seems particularly weak to me. The author doesn’t even seem to know what purgatory is! He implies that one is suffering one’s self into Heaven. That’s a distortion. God’s grace saves us as long as we don’t refuse it. Those in purgatory have accepted God’s grace, but merely experience loss and pain as they lose their attachment to sin. If Christs suffering on the cross took away all our suffering, then why are we suffering on Earth? The author isn’t logical.

I wonder why Paul prays for his dead friend Onesiphorus in 2 Tim 1:16-18? I guess Paul was being “unbiblical”. :rolleyes:

The Church isn’t Bible-based, it’s based on Christ, and the Bible is based on the Church.
 
As if the whole case for purgatory rested on a verse in 1 Peter. As if it rested entirely on scripture alone. The first tip off that it is bunk is that he quotes page 63 of the Second Vatican Council.

And:
“The Word of God clearly teaches that when a sinner puts his faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, he is at the time of personal belief justified before God as a free gift (Rom. 3:26-30), having entered into peace with Him through faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1-2).”

As if the Catholic Church said anything else.
 
It seems, as usual, Protestant theolgy in this case is very much on the surface and not interested in casting into deep water. One shouldn’t approach the Bible as a mean to justify a belief, rather ones beliefs should be formed from the Bible with the infallible interpretation of the Church (I am with you until the end of the age, power to bind and loose).
 
40.png
Think:
and to Keating’s defense of it imparticular…of course a lot of you will disagree but interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Does this article reflect your own opinions or are you bringing it up just to start another debate - like your book idea yesterday where you theorized that Jesus was actually Satan?

Also, two of the other threads you started, like this, were nothing more than the posting of links to subjects inflammatory to Catholics with no explanation on your part. Can’t you “Think” for yourself?😃
 
After reading back over Think’s previous links, I can only say that he is not only anti Catholic but anti Christian as well.
 
I thought it was interesting. That is all.
40.png
deb1:
After reading back over Think’s previous links, I can only say that he is not only anti Catholic but anti Christian as well.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Think:
I thought it was interesting. That is all.
Click to expand...
Hi Think!:tiphat:

I thought it was interesting also. It is a little scary how articulate some of these writers can be - its easy to believe what they post. But after reading and thinking about that particular link, I have to agree with others that the BIG questions regarding Purgatory were left unaddressed. Namely, how do we lose our remaining attachment to sin before we enter into heaven “pure”? I guess the author could claim that this issue was not addressed because Keating didn’t bring it up in his defense of the Doctrine of Purgatory, but I know better - I’ve read his stuff. In addition, the concept of Purgatory is not exclusively Catholic - the word is, but not the concept. The concept of incomplete sanctification at the time of death requiring some element of completion afterwards is well accepted in Protestant circles. The REAL issue stems back to the indulgence scandals of the 15th century which involved “purchasing” people out of Purgatory - this was never endorsed by the Church.

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
Hi Think!:tiphat:

I thought it was interesting also. It is a little scary how articulate some of these writers can be - its easy to believe what they post. But after reading and thinking about that particular link, I have to agree with others that the BIG questions regarding Purgatory were left unaddressed. Namely, how do we lose our remaining attachment to sin before we enter into heaven “pure”? I guess the author could claim that this issue was not addressed because Keating didn’t bring it up in his defense of the Doctrine of Purgatory, but I know better - I’ve read his stuff. In addition, the concept of Purgatory is not exclusively Catholic - the word is, but not the concept. The concept of incomplete sanctification at the time of death requiring some element of completion afterwards is well accepted in Protestant circles. The REAL issue stems back to the indulgence scandals of the 15th century which involved “purchasing” people out of Purgatory - this was never endorsed by the Church.

Phil
Click to expand...
There is also the Jewish philosophy on the matter which was expounded on by Josephus in his discourse to the Greeks in which he points out that, after death, the souls of both the righteous and unrighteous are taken to a place where “temporary punishments, agreeable to all, are administered.” The corrupt are punished before being cast into the lake of fire, and the saved are punished before entering into heaven.

Or is it possible that there were Roman Catholics running around before the time of Christ spreading the theory of purgatory?

Thal59
 
This is why so many Protestants spend so much more time in Purgatory than Catholics - they get the shock of their lives that they must go through a purification before entering Heaven without a stain of sin.
No one to pray for their soul because they don’t believe in that (?) and no great works just faith. No confession so they have a lifetime of sins and no belief in the extraordinary intercessions of the Blessed Mother and Saints who can help so much. Instead, ignoring and oftentimes hostile to the Mother of Jesus Christ.

I pray for our misguided brothers and sisters.
“Sacred Heart of Jesus, may the whole world burn with love for You.”
 
THINK,

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. Your profile says your Religion is CYCLING. Oh man, you must worship your Bike.
Who said this was STRONG? Was it your handlebars?
Go find something thaat you know something about. On this Catholic Answers Forum you’ll find that most can blow you out of the water. Ha, Ha, Ha.
 
40.png
deb1:
After reading back over Think’s previous links, I can only say that he is not only anti Catholic but anti Christian as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, after checking think’s posts, THINK is Anti- Catholic. See the post just above.
 
40.png
Contarini:
It isn’t very strong at all, because it doesn’t address the issues. It charges off on the usual false trail of claiming that urgatory contradicts the idea that Jesus atoned for all sin. Purgatory is only for sins that have been forgiven. So the entire argument presented is irrelevant.

The question you have to answer is this: given that most of us still are not entirely sanctified when we die, how do we get rid of the remaning sinful desires that are in us at death? We aren’t talking about justification. We aren’t talking about forgiveness. We agree that this is on the basis of grace received through faith that works in love. Unless you are willing to address the issue of how we get from a state of moral imperfection to a state of perfect holiness, you have nothing to say about Purgatory at all.

And as for your quote–I don’t know who said it, but it’s bunk. The Renaissance was full of mysticism. Has the Mystery Author ever heard of Marsilio Ficino? Nicholas of Cusa? Furthermore, the Renaissance wasn’t particularly strong on reason. Renaissance folks were more into rhetoric and beauty and style than reason. The scholastic philosophers of the 13-14th centuries were far more careful thinkers than the humanists of the 15th. (Granted, scholasticism and humanism overlapped considerably, and weren’t incompatible.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
But if purgatory is only for sins that are forgiven, how “forgiven” are they? Remember- he said “It is done.”

He paid the cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top